Irrefutable Argument of the 2nd Amendment 3-06-2019
My Brother and I frequently argue the 2nd Amendment, sometimes my sister. I finally trumped him. Below is an irrefutable argument in favor of citizens owning projectile weapons, My sister leaned toward my argument anyway.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Copyright Pending.
My Brother’s argument is always about who “We the People” are and what a well regulated militia is. This irrefutable argument addresses both and more.
Jamison, I don’t see any paragraph. I do see a well written, timeless irrefutable sentence. You didn’t get my point but You made my point when You typed: Agree with quite a bit of your reasoning, although do not think the crown is much of a threat 200 years later.
You’re looking at the Constitution in 1 maybe 2 dimensions or 240 degrees. It was written in 3 dimensions or 360 degrees of consideration. They didn’t write it to apply to this day or that, but all days and all time. Above is a the 2nd Amendment as is favored to Your understanding of the Amendment.
1st A militia cannot be more regulated than if the Children are taught from birth how to handle the “Individual weapon”; Best regulated “militia” ever. While tyranny is implied by weapons being necessary to keep a free State from enemies foreign and domestic.
2nd Those loyal to the Crown were not American Citizens or “We the People”. If the American citizen was loyal to the Crown, they were spies and if caught they were hung or shot, not released. So the Amendment can be read to deny those loyal to the Crown weapons, in that day. And, when You said, “Agree with quite a bit of your reasoning, although do not think the crown is much of a threat 200 years later.” You make my point because for this day of reading, in which it is applied, there is not that same threat from the Crown, in the numbers of the threat 200 ago. The statement supports that today there is less threat from an enemy foreign. In the case of terrorist and those “sleeper cells” they are spies if they are American Citizens. Though maybe we may disarm them and have them swear allegiance to the United States if they fore-go their right to bear arms. Or that they may bear arms only if they swear allegiance and incriminate themselves to their terrorists organization by giving us information vital to safety. Thereby they may need to protect themselves in the future. If spy flipping gets two crazy and they are flipped back to terrorist there’s always hanging and shooting. And I think it should be public and torturous, vital to the safety of our nation.
3rd In the case of a tyrannical Government over the People, and the Military sides against the Government, with the People, all of those trained from birth to handle an “Individual weapon” are most ready to be trained by the National Guard on the Militarie(‘s’) behalf, for the “Best Regulated ‘Militia'” that ever could be. Therefore every Home should “keep and bear arms“. “We the People” can only be we the American Citizens whom are “the People” from which Pubic Office and Government Office are elected and Government Officials are appointed. First they must be “We the People” the American Citizen.
The 4th point I made is that the “projectile weapon”, for the industrial person, is so much easier to make and so much more humane than a club that You may only invite tyranny and cruelty in outlawing them. In the UK I am sure they are experiencing such phenomena.
A blow gun is a “projectile weapon” and can be bamboo. You may think the club is easier to make because the bamboo shoot is already a club before it is a blowgun. But, it is not industrial. If there is a pipe laying around You may make a “projectile weapon” more easily than the ease that it would take to make that same pipe. “So, can’t a pipe company make the pipe more easily?”, not as easily as they could make a projectile for the bamboo shoot. If it’s a pipe that doesn’t make projectiles, I can find a projectile, in the very machinery they use to make any pipe that I could use a blow gun or sling.
Trying to outlaw the pistol for the industrial person is the equivalent of trying to outlaw the stone instead of regulating what is done with it.
That is an irrefutable argument. It can not reasonably be argued against.